Mr C Cooper v The Sports Project CIC: 1405375/2023
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 03 October 2023. The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £2,155 gross.[3]The respondent must pay the claimant £2,155 in total.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because The respondent in this matter has applied for reconsideration of the judgement issued on the 8 April 2024. Following correspondence with the Employment Tribunal, the respondent wrote to the employment tribunal on 21 May 2024 stating that he would like to make an application for reconsideration of the judgment on grounds that he was not properly served with the claim form. In response the claimant has stated that the respondent was served at the correct address for The Sports Project CIC and the PE and sports projects, as listed on Companies House. Under rule 70 to 73 of the Employment Tribunals ( Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, a party may apply for reconsideration of a judgement, if it is presented within 14 days of the date on which the written record or other written communication of the original decision was sent to the parties or within 14 days of the date that the written reasons were sent and shall set out why reconsideration of the original decision is necessary. 11.6R Judgment – Reconsideration refused – respondent - rule 72 Case Number: 1405375.2023«case_no_year» The respondent in this case has not therefore made an application for a reconsideration within 14 days of the date that the judgement was sent to him. Therefore his application would have been rejected on that ground in any event. However, in this case, the Employment Judge has considered whether there is any reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. In this case the address that the documents were served on the respondent, is the same address that is recorded on Companies House and is the address that was provided via ACAS. On 22 May 2024 Mr Tyrell on behalf of the respondent wrote to Miss Ambrose, the claimant in the second identical case, with a copy to the employment tribunal stating that the Sports Project CIC stopped trading in September 2022 and that the mailbox at the address in Bath had not been checked. He stated that no correspondence was sent to his home address. In fact, the company remained active on companies house at the relevant time and the address for service was therefore the registered address. In this case the Employment Judge is satisfied that the claim was properly served on the registered company house address and that if there was a failure to check post at that address, that is a failure of the respondent. In those circumstances there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and the respondent’s application for reconsideration of the judgement is therefore refused.